

In a business with tens of thousands of servers, it makes sense to have long complicated names.
I’m actually not convinced of this approach. It’s one of those things that makes perfect logical sense when you say it - but in practice “DBDWWHORCLHHIP01” is just as meaningless as “Hercules”. And it’s a lot more difficult to say, remember and differentiate from “DBDWWHORCLHHID01”. You may as well just use UUIDs at that point.
Humans are really good at associating names with things. It’s why people have names. We don’t call people “AMCAM601W” for a reason. Even in conversations you don’t rattle off the long initialism names of systems - you say “The <product> database”.


Sooo, that example wasn’t exactly “contrived” - it’s based on a standard I see where I work.
DB - it's a database! DW - and a data warehouse at that! ORCL - It's an Oracle database! HHI - Application or team using / managing this database P - Production (T for Test - love the 1 char difference between names!) 01 - There may be more than one.This is more what I’m arguing against - embedding meta-data about the thing into its name. Especially when all of that information is available in AWS metadata.
[Site][service][Rack]makes sense for on-premise stuff - no argument there.Agree